|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2004 04:12:51 PM · #26 |
The problem is Ron, and everyone else for whatever reason thinks people in great power actually have MORE morals than normal people. This could be no farther from the truth. Power corrupts. To think this kind of unlimited information will ONLY be used for good and appropriate reasons is naive.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 04:26:49 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The problem is Ron, and everyone else for whatever reason thinks people in great power actually have MORE morals than normal people. This could be no farther from the truth. Power corrupts. To think this kind of unlimited information will ONLY be used for good and appropriate reasons is naive. |
You're right on point two ( about naivity ), but not on point one ( that I believe that people in great power have MORE morals than normal people.
First of all, MORALS don't come in degrees of "more" and "less" - they come in degrees of "goodness" and "badness". Everyone has the same amount of morals, just not the same degree of "goodness" in their morals.
Secondly, I agree; Power DOES corrupt.
Third, I agree: that kind of thinking IS naive.
But, fourth, I would rather take a chance of having MY information MISused, than in NOT having those who desire to kill me and my countrymen thwarted. It would appear that there are many who disagree with my opinion.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 04:54:30 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually, yes, the Jews DID have something to hide in Nazi Germany - the fact that they were Jewish. |
And quite a handy list that made for the ever-vigilant Nazis. Much to be learned from our goose-stepping friends, eh, RonB?
As handy as that list was for the brownshirts, would you not support the registration of all citizens in The U.S. according to their religion as well?
Since a few civil liberties are easily sacrificed for the greater security of the public, doesn't it make sense that we know who and where the registered Islamists live and work?
After all, those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.
Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;)
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 16:58:56. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 05:25:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually, yes, the Jews DID have something to hide in Nazi Germany - the fact that they were Jewish. |
And quite a handy list that made for the ever-vigilant Nazis. Much to be learned from our goose-stepping friends, eh, RonB? |
From all I can gather, there was no such list until Hitler came to power. That's why the Gestapo had to conduct door-to-door searches. That fact rather belies your suggestion that the Nazis were "ever-vigilant".
Then, I have to wonder whether the manner of their marching is relevant to this discussion? Or do you have some kind of prejudice against countries whose soldiers march in that manner?
And, for what it's worth, YES, there IS much to be learned: those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Oh, and one more thing - they weren't our "friends".
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
As handy as that list was for the brownshirts, would you not support the registration of all citizens in The U.S. according to their religion as well? |
To repeat, there was no such list in the beginning. The list was compiled after Hitler came to power.
No, I would not support the registration of all citizens in the U.S. according to their religion.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Since a few civil liberties are easily sacrificed for the greater security of the public, doesn't it make sense that we know who and where the registered Islamists live and work? |
No, it doesn't - but then I didn't know that Islamists had to register anywhere. I mean, I know that Christians believe that their names are written in the "book of the lamb" ( though that book is strictly confidential ), but is there a similar registration list for Islamists? And why would we expect Allah to make it public, even if there were one?
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
After all, those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear. |
I'll assume that you meant that to be sarcasm. Hence I will just leave it and not say Amen.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 17:26:46. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 05:48:30 PM · #30 |
Why are you against registering citizens by religious affiliation?
I thought you said government needs information useful for combatting terrorism, and that this need outweighs certain individual liberties ( to paraphrase ). Surely religious affiliation is a powerful profiling tool, useful to the government.
While Hitler's Germany used that sort of information for nefarious purposes, I interpreted your above discussions to indicate that you trusted our state agencies to use enough good judgement to balance the small loss of civil privacy such a valuable anti-terrorism tool would justify.
Do you think that the time it takes to register ones religious affiliation is worth more than the safety of the country?
Or do you think the value of ones privacy of religion is worth more than the intelligence benefit?
Or have I missed the point altogether? |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 05:48:49 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 06:14:52 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Why are you against registering citizens by religious affiliation? |
Because "religious affiliation" is something that can change over time, and is something that one can lie about, if asked. Not to mention that MANY call themselves "affiliated" but do not even adhere to the tenets of the faith they "affiliate" with. It serves no purpose.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
I thought you said government needs information useful for combatting terrorism, and that this need outweighs certain individual liberties ( to paraphrase ). |
That is correct. I did say something to that effect.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Surely religious affiliation is a powerful profiling tool, useful to the government. |
While it might be a powerful profiling tool, I question its usefulness. What use would it serve?
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
While Hitler's Germany used that sort of information for nefarious purposes, I interpreted your above discussions to indicate that you trusted our state agencies to use enough good judgement to balance the small loss of civil privacy such a valuable anti-terrorism tool would justify. |
Well, you interpret incorrectly. While I DO trust our state agencies to use good judgement to balance the small loss of civil privacy, I do NOT feel that such a ( profiling ) tool would be useful as an anti-terrorism tool, and would NOT be justified.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Do you think that the time it takes to register ones religious affiliation is worth more than the safety of the country? |
Since I have already said that I do NOT feel that religious registration is valid, the question is moot.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Or do you think the value of ones privacy of religion is worth more than the intelligence benefit? |
It's not a matter of privacy - it's a matter of usefulness. One's statement as to their religious affiliation is not worth much in the way of intelligence.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Or have I missed the point altogether? |
Well, based on your questions, it appears that you have.
Ron
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 06:18:13 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 06:23:20 PM · #34 |
If my neighbor was building a nuclear bomb in his garage I would hope the government would do what they need to do to find and stop him before he turns the greater Phoenix area back into a desert waste land.
If that means that a computer is going to compile all the information that is already floating around about me in one spot, so be it.
Unless Ron was wrong, didn't he say nothing that isn't already collected today would be collected?
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 08:12:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
Pick one, with the possible exception of Nixon's.
I can't name one that is more self righteous though.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 08:21:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
Pick one, with the possible exception of Nixon's.
I can't name one that is more self righteous though. |
Indeed/agreed |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:00:01 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
Pick one, with the possible exception of Nixon's.
I can't name one that is more self righteous though. |
In other words, you can't. But then I didn't think you could - or at least wouldn't stake your reputation on naming one.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:00:50 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
Pick one, with the possible exception of Nixon's.
I can't name one that is more self righteous though. |
Indeed/agreed |
In other words, neither can you. I didn't think so.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:44:16 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
Pick one, with the possible exception of Nixon's.
I can't name one that is more self righteous though. |
In other words, you can't. But then I didn't think you could - or at least wouldn't stake your reputation on naming one.
Ron |
What reputation do I have to stake?
Since you asked: Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman, Both Roosevelts, Reagan, Carter, Clinton.....
There, I named 8, though I'm sure I could come up with more.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 10:26:30 PM · #40 |
Ron, im sorry but I dont share your misguided allegiance to the president. I dont think Mr. Bush is a honest man, much less more moral than any president before him. I dont feel the need to actually name off presidents I thought were better as the only one I can think that might be worse is Nixon.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 11:01:14 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Ron, im sorry but I dont share your misguided allegiance to the president. I dont think Mr. Bush is a honest man, much less more moral than any president before him. I dont feel the need to actually name off presidents I thought were better as the only one I can think that might be worse is Nixon. |
Well said. It scares me to find people as inteligent as you Ron who would support someone like Bush. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 11:34:59 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
Pick one, with the possible exception of Nixon's.
I can't name one that is more self righteous though. |
In other words, you can't. But then I didn't think you could - or at least wouldn't stake your reputation on naming one.
Ron |
What reputation do I have to stake?
Since you asked: Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman, Both Roosevelts, Reagan, Carter, Clinton.....
There, I named 8, though I'm sure I could come up with more. |
OK. First, let's get rid of Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman, and both Roosevelts - none of them served in your lifetime. That leaves Reagan, Carter, and CLINTON?????
Let's dispatch Bill Clinton right off the bat - he was accused of Rape by more than one woman, has never actually denied that he raped Juanita Broderick. He was guilty of adultry with Monica Lewinski and lied to the Grand Jury. He was banned from arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States, and disbarred by the state of Arkansas. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, is responsible for the massacres at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Elian Gonzalez affair ( in which federal agents with assault rifles broke into a house in the middle of the night to take a 7-year old boy into custody )
That leaves Carter and Reagan. Interestingly, one a Democrat, and one a Republican ( ex-Democrat ).
First, Carter: While it would appear that born-again Jimmy Carter was a man of high moral integrity, his actions do not support that postition. Carter lied on national television in January of 1978 about his role in firing David Marston, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, who was at the time of his firing ready to indict a couple of powerful Democrat Congressmen. Peter Bourne, who Carter placed in charge of drug policy, resigned in 1978 after writing illegal prescriptions and, allegedly, using cocaine at a NORML Christmas Party. Andrew Young, Carter's Ambassador to the United Nations, met secretly with PLO and then flatly lied about that meeting (he resigned too). Bert Lance, Director of the Office of Management & Budget for Carter was indicted on multiple counts (he resigned, and was later acquitted). In July, 1979, Carter asked his entire Cabinet to resign, and eventually accepted 5 resignations.
And Reagan: First, I'm quite surprised that you even had the nerve to include him in the list - especially after the attacks on him by the liberals here in the DPC fora following his death. As far as it goes, I believe that he is second only to G.W. Bush. In retrospect, perhaps it isn't so much a fault of character as the early signs of Alzheimers Disease, but Reagan had a real problem remembering what he said, or did, even when testifying in the Iran-Contra hearings. But, those two words say it all about the Reagan administration - Iran Contra. Not about President Reagan himself, but about his administration.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-08-10 11:36:26. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 11:45:56 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Ron, im sorry but I dont share your misguided allegiance to the president. I dont think Mr. Bush is a honest man, much less more moral than any president before him. I dont feel the need to actually name off presidents I thought were better as the only one I can think that might be worse is Nixon. |
Well said. It scares me to find people as inteligent as you Ron who would support someone like Bush. |
I would like to know why you feel that Bush is not an honest man and why you feel that is is much less moral than any president before him. You don't have to name any presidents or even compare him to anyone. Just explain what he has said or done as president that is dishonest or immoral.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 11:54:33 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
[quote=RonB]
[quote=Gingerbaker]Especially from an administration with such high moral character as the one currently occupying the White House. ;) |
Amen, that.
Ron |
Do you really believe that??? |
Absolutely!!!
Name one administration that exhibited greater moral character in your lifetime.
Ron |
Pick one, with the possible exception of Nixon's.
I can't name one that is more self righteous though. |
In other words, you can't. But then I didn't think you could - or at least wouldn't stake your reputation on naming one.
Ron |
What reputation do I have to stake?
Since you asked: Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman, Both Roosevelts, Reagan, Carter, Clinton.....
There, I named 8, though I'm sure I could come up with more. |
OK. First, let's get rid of Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman, and both Roosevelts - none of them served in your lifetime. That leaves Reagan, Carter, and CLINTON?????
Let's dispatch Bill Clinton right off the bat - he was accused of Rape by more than one woman, has never actually denied that he raped Juanita Broderick. He was guilty of adultry with Monica Lewinski and lied to the Grand Jury. He was banned from arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States, and disbarred by the state of Arkansas. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, is responsible for the massacres at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Elian Gonzalez affair ( in which federal agents with assault rifles broke into a house in the middle of the night to take a 7-year old boy into custody )
That leaves Carter and Reagan. Interestingly, one a Democrat, and one a Republican ( ex-Democrat ).
First, Carter: While it would appear that born-again Jimmy Carter was a man of high moral integrity, his actions do not support that postition. Carter lied on national television in January of 1978 about his role in firing David Marston, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, who was at the time of his firing ready to indict a couple of powerful Democrat Congressmen. Peter Bourne, who Carter placed in charge of drug policy, resigned in 1978 after writing illegal prescriptions and, allegedly, using cocaine at a NORML Christmas Party. Andrew Young, Carter's Ambassador to the United Nations, met secretly with PLO and then flatly lied about that meeting (he resigned too). Bert Lance, Director of the Office of Management & Budget for Carter was indicted on multiple counts (he resigned, and was later acquitted). In July, 1979, Carter asked his entire Cabinet to resign, and eventually accepted 5 resignations.
And Reagan: First, I'm quite surprised that you even had the nerve to include him in the list - especially after the attacks on him by the liberals here in the DPC fora following his death. As far as it goes, I believe that he is second only to G.W. Bush. In retrospect, perhaps it isn't so much a fault of character as the early signs of Alzheimers Disease, but Reagan had a real problem remembering what he said, or did, even when testifying in the Iran-Contra hearings. But, those two words say it all about the Reagan administration - Iran Contra. Not about President Reagan himself, but about his administration.
Ron |
All of which pales in comparison with lying to the world in order to justify invading a country, regardless of how despicable the regime in power. Where are the WMD's? Where's the link to al-Qaeda? The planning done by this administration on what to do after we kicked some Iraqi butt and took control must've taken all of about 5 minutes, and it shows.
Not to mention this is the only recent administration to seek restrictions on personal freedoms through a constitutional amendment. The last time that happened was Prohibition, and that certainly went well.
If you want to get into the past lives of Bush II, lets remember that he was a coke-snorting alchoholic who spent the time he was supposed to be defending Texas from the communists while serving in the Nat'l Guard, working on a political campaign for one of his father's cronies.
Message edited by author 2004-08-10 12:01:57.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 12:46:57 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
All of which pales in comparison with lying to the world in order to justify invading a country, regardless of how despicable the regime in power. |
Bush did not lie to the world. No one on this board has yet been able to offer proof that he did. I'll bet that you can't either.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where are the WMD's? |
2) WMD's have been found - illegal rockets, warheads, sarin, mustard gas, etc. Polish troops in Iraq recently have discovered "16 or 17" warheads containing sarin or mustard gas, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where's the link to al-Qaeda? |
The 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." ref here
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The planning done by this administration on what to do after we kicked some Iraqi butt and took control must've taken all of about 5 minutes, and it shows. |
Sarcasm - not worth addressing
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not to mention this is the only recent administration to seek restrictions on personal freedoms through a constitutional amendment.
The last time that happened was Prohibition, and that certainly went well. |
What freedoms are those?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you want to get into the past lives of Bush II, lets remember that he was a coke-snorting alchoholic... |
Yes, he was, but he isn't now. But I'm curious as to why do you think that we should remember it?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...who spent the time he was supposed to be defending Texas from the communists while serving in the Nat'l Guard, working on a political campaign for one of his father's cronies. |
I don't believe that you can prove that.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 01:50:36 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
All of which pales in comparison with lying to the world in order to justify invading a country, regardless of how despicable the regime in power. |
Bush did not lie to the world. No one on this board has yet been able to offer proof that he did. I'll bet that you can't either. |
It's not about proof, I know a fish story when I hear one, and we were fed a doozy.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where are the WMD's? |
2) WMD's have been found - illegal rockets, warheads, sarin, mustard gas, etc. Polish troops in Iraq recently have discovered "16 or 17" warheads containing sarin or mustard gas, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. |
I understand they found the delivery vehicles (rocket, shells ) but no actual WMD compounds. Where are the factories that were pumping out tons of bioweapons, chemweapons, and illicit nuclear material?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where's the link to al-Qaeda? |
The 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." ref here |
Yes, they met, but to what end? Where are the al-Qaeda traing facilities? They may have met, but we were led to believe that Saddam was marching hand in hand with al-Qaeda actively seeking to destroy the US.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The planning done by this administration on what to do after we kicked some Iraqi butt and took control must've taken all of about 5 minutes, and it shows. |
Sarcasm - not worth addressing |
It may be sarcastic, but it's very true. The planning for the aftermath, if there was any planning, was rushed and ill-conceived on an epic scale. This administration was telling us that our troops would be greeted as liberators by Iraqis lining the boulevards of Baghdad waving the Stars and Stripes.
As far as it being not worth addressing, tell that to those who have been killed in Iraq (Iraqis and Americans) since Bush's stunt on the aircraft carrier, declaring "Mission Accomplished" I bet they would find it very much worth addressing. I find the lack of forethought by the administration inexcusable.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not to mention this is the only recent administration to seek restrictions on personal freedoms through a constitutional amendment.
The last time that happened was Prohibition, and that certainly went well. |
What freedoms are those? |
The gay marriage amendment.
Not to mention the other freedoms trampled by the Patriot Act, like the right to privacy, freedom to assemble, right to a speedy trial, right to face your accusers, pretty much the whole bill of rights.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you want to get into the past lives of Bush II, lets remember that he was a coke-snorting alchoholic... |
Yes, he was, but he isn't now. But I'm curious as to why do you think that we should remember it? |
Just a reminder of how his formative years at Yale and for some time thereafter were squandered.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...who spent the time he was supposed to be defending Texas from the communists while serving in the Nat'l Guard, working on a political campaign for one of his father's cronies. |
I don't believe that you can prove that.
Ron |
No, because a significant portion of his service records were conveniently "destroyed". It is well-documented that GW spent June-Sept. of 1972 working as a campaign volunteer for Winton Blount in Alabama, where he transferred to the AL Nat'l Guard. Only problem is that he never bothered showing up for drill in AL. At least no one there, including his commanding officer remebers him, and the records don't show that he ever reported. He got paid, but not for showing up. The government spent a lot of money to train GW to fly jets, but his career as a pilot was somewhat less than stellar and ended under questionable circumstances. He missed all drills during his 5th year of service and left the NG 8 mo early. He was no longer eligble to fly, having missed 4 physicals after May 1971. What a waste.
Message edited by author 2004-08-10 13:53:15.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 07:31:26 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
All of which pales in comparison with lying to the world in order to justify invading a country, regardless of how despicable the regime in power. |
Bush did not lie to the world. No one on this board has yet been able to offer proof that he did. I'll bet that you can't either. |
It's not about proof, I know a fish story when I hear one, and we were fed a doozy. |
Ah but it IS about the proof. If Bush wasn't a public figure, and you called him a liar in print, you could be charged with libel ( unless, of course, you could prove it - which is where the "proof" part comes in ).
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where are the WMD's? |
2) WMD's have been found - illegal rockets, warheads, sarin, mustard gas, etc. Polish troops in Iraq recently have discovered "16 or 17" warheads containing sarin or mustard gas, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. |
I understand they found the delivery vehicles (rocket, shells ) but no actual WMD compounds. |
I hate to burst your rant, but sarin and mustard gas are WMD compounds.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where are the factories that were pumping out tons of bioweapons, chemweapons, and illicit nuclear material? |
I don't know. Why do you ask? Were you somehow led ( or misled ) into believing or expecting that there were factories pumping out tons of bioweapons, chemwepons, and illicit nuclear material? If so, I'd like to know the source of such information.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where's the link to al-Qaeda? |
The 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." ref here |
Yes, they met,... |
Thanks so much for the acknowledgement.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but to what end? Where are the al-Qaeda traing facilities? |
I don't know. Why do you ask? Were you somehow led ( or misled ) into believing or expecting that there were al-Qaeda training facilities in Iraq? If so, I'd like to know the source of such information.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
They may have met, but we were led to believe that Saddam was marching hand in hand with al-Qaeda actively seeking to destroy the US. |
If so, perhaps it was the text of the 1998 ( Clinton administration ) Justice Department indictment against Osama bin-laden which said, in part:
"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." ( emphasis mine ).
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The planning done by this administration on what to do after we kicked some Iraqi butt and took control must've taken all of about 5 minutes, and it shows. |
Sarcasm - not worth addressing |
It may be sarcastic, but it's very true. |
NOT. While the degree of planning might be considered insufficient by some, I don't think any rational person would say that only 5 minutes was allotted to the planning. At best, the 5 minute figure is hyperbole - which makes your statement not "very" true.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The planning for the aftermath, if there was any planning, was rushed and ill-conceived on an epic scale. This administration was telling us that our troops would be greeted as liberators by Iraqis lining the boulevards of Baghdad waving the Stars and Stripes. |
Yeah, Like that.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As far as it being not worth addressing, tell that to those who have been killed in Iraq (Iraqis and Americans) since Bush's stunt on the aircraft carrier, declaring "Mission Accomplished" I bet they would find it very much worth addressing. I find the lack of forethought by the administration inexcusable. |
The "Mission Accomplished" was for the benefit of the men on that Aircraft Carrier, whose mission HAD been ACCOMPLISHED. It was not intended to reflect the administrations mindset for the entire war effort. In his remarks, Bush only indicated that it was the end of "major hostilities".
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not to mention this is the only recent administration to seek restrictions on personal freedoms through a constitutional amendment.
The last time that happened was Prohibition, and that certainly went well. |
What freedoms are those? |
The gay marriage amendment. |
Not to belabor the point, but gay marriage is not a "personal freedom" as you say it is - it is a legislative privilege, already restricted by law in literally every state in the union. Even where permitted by law, one must apply to the government for a license to be married. And, contrary to liberal propaganda, the proposed Federal Marriage Ammendment does not restrict gay marriage at all. It merely makes it a STATE issue. The actual wording is as follows: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." If you read that carefully, it only says that no state shall REQUIRE that marriage be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman by CONSTITUTIONAL decree. All that really means is that the state can change the laws concerning non-heterosexual marriage from time to time as the citizens of that state decide by due process.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not to mention the other freedoms trampled by the Patriot Act, like the right to privacy, freedom to assemble, right to a speedy trial, right to face your accusers, pretty much the whole bill of rights. |
Just for my edification, could you list one or two instances where the Patriot Act tramples the right to privacy, freedom to assemble, right to a speedy trial, right to face your accuser, pretty much the whole bill of rights?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you want to get into the past lives of Bush II, lets remember that he was a coke-snorting alchoholic... |
Yes, he was, but he isn't now. But I'm curious as to why do you think that we should remember it? |
Just a reminder of how his formative years at Yale and for some time thereafter were squandered. |
Which do you think your wife would consider worse - that you snorted coke when you were in your twenties or that you engaged in sex with several other women within the past few years? Which would you consider worse, snorting coke or torching a village? Just wondering.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...who spent the time he was supposed to be defending Texas from the communists while serving in the Nat'l Guard, working on a political campaign for one of his father's cronies. |
I don't believe that you can prove that.
Ron |
No, because a significant portion of his service records were conveniently "destroyed". |
Gee, I notice that you enclose the word "destroyed" in quotes but not the word "conveniently". Does that mean that you think that the records were NOT destroyed? Could you produce all of your high school records if you were asked to? I believe that this remark is just innuendo.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It is well-documented that GW spent June-Sept. of 1972 working as a campaign volunteer for Winton Blount in Alabama, where he transferred to the AL Nat'l Guard. |
Yes, And that was in conflict with his service in what way? According to military records obtained by The Washington Post, Bush first requested and received permission in May 1972 to be transferred to the Alabama National Guard so he could work on a U.S. Senate campaign. In his transfer request, Bush specifically requested assignment in a "no pay" position. He was granted permission by his commanding officer, Lt.Col. Reese R. Bricken. So he had permission from the military to go to Alabama at "no pay" to work on the campaign.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Only problem is that he never bothered showing up for drill in AL. At least no one there, including his commanding officer remebers him, and the records don't show that he ever reported. He got paid, but not for showing up. |
Not really. There is no record of him getting paid for those dates, either. Meaning he didn't request pay.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The government spent a lot of money to train GW to fly jets, but his career as a pilot was somewhat less than stellar and ended under questionable circumstances. He missed all drills during his 5th year of service and left the NG 8 mo early. He was no longer eligble to fly, having missed 4 physicals after May 1971. What a waste. |
Actually, as a pilot he was consistently rated as very competent. In March 1970, the Texas Air National Guard issued a press release: "Lt. Bush recently became the first Houston pilot to be trained by the 147th Fighter Group and to solo in the F-102." I don't know of any F-102 pilots who would classify soloing in that aircraft as "easy". It takes a great deal of skill, and a lot of guts.
I do agree that it is a shame to put so much effort into training a pilot to only realize 2-3 years of service afterward. BUT...most commercial airline pilots are former military pilots of the same kind - relatively short military service with lots of training, followed by a lengthy civilian career capitalizing on that training - and we, the traveling public, benefit from it.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 07:49:19 PM · #48 |
Here's a timeline of Bush's NG record:
May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is selected to attend pilot training.
July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing airman's basic training.
July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida.
Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. (UTP Course #P-V4A-A Moody AFB, Ga. 53 weeks November 1969)
January 1,1970 147th changes from doing Alerts to training F-102 pilots.
December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base.
Febuary 1970 Bush attends Preint Pilot Training (T-33 ANG112501 5 weeks )
June 1970 his records are not clear his computer records show RGRAD NAV TNG but his Discharge shows F102 Intcp Pilot Training (F102 ANG1125D 16 weeks). His Military Biography shows: Professional Military Education: Basic Military Training, Undergraduate Pilot Training and nothing else.
July 1970 to April 16, 1972: Bush, as a certified fighter pilot, attends frequent drills and alerts at Ellington.
Computer records show last Physical as May 1971. Which also shows him as CR MEM ON FS (crew member on flight service) not PILOT.
During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign he appeared for duty.
May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama. But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.
Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never showed up.
November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but apparently not to his Air Force unit.
May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not been at the unit in that period.
May to July 1973: Bush, after special orders are issued for him to report for duty, logs 36 days of duty.
July 30, 1973: His last day in uniform, according to his records.
Oct. 1, 1973: A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business School, he is formally discharged from the Texas Air National Guard -- eight months before his six-year term expires.
The main thing that gets me is; as a pilot he could have been anywhere in the US and been able to get a ride back to Houston for his weekend duty. Even non- pilots could do it by flying standby on MATS. But W didn't do it. He had to get a transfer to a unit in Alabama. Missing his physical took him to a non-flying status, but even that wouldn't have stopped him from riding a back seat in a T-33 going home for duty.
He missed all his physicals after May 1971, so he couldn't have kept his "pilot" rating, but that is the MOS on his discharge. What did he do as a non-pilot in the Guard? If he didn't miss the physicals, then they should be in his record. They aren't.
The government, spent all that money to train Bush to fly F-102's and he not only ducked out early, he didn't even bother to keep flying while he was in. As I said, what a waste.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 07:58:03 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where are the WMD's? |
2) WMD's have been found - illegal rockets, warheads, sarin, mustard gas, etc. Polish troops in Iraq recently have discovered "16 or 17" warheads containing sarin or mustard gas, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. |
I understand they found the delivery vehicles (rocket, shells ) but no actual WMD compounds. |
I hate to burst your rant, but sarin and mustard gas are WMD compounds. |
Yeah, they found traces, meaning that at one time, long ago, they contained or were exposed to these compounds. They did not find ready munitions. If they had found such, the administration would have heralded it from the rooftops for all to hear and waved it in the faces of those arrogant French and Germans. Didn't happen. Won't happen.
Again, where are the WMD's?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 08:06:44 PM · #50 |
Are these the same happy Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges?
The "honeymoon" between liberated Iraqis and the US forces, if there ever was one, is largely over.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:12:13 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:12:13 PM EDT.
|
